Empowerment bill ‘not racist’
The chairperson of the Law Reform and Development Commission (LRDC), Yvonne Dausab, yesterday denied that the New Equitable Economic Empowerment Bill is racist, saying that its “affirmative action component” is provided for in the Namibian constitution.
Article 23 (2) of the constitution states that parliament can enact legislation providing directly or indirectly for the advancement of persons within Namibia who have been socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged by past discriminatory laws or practices or for the implementation of policies and programmes aimed at redressing such imbalances.
It further states that a balanced structuring of the public service, police force, defence force and prison service should be achieved.
Dausab, however, did acknowledge that there are “potentially unconstitutional” provisions in the bill dealing with the right to property ownership, the right of association and the right to conduct any business or trade. She, however, stressed that the LRDC would not propose an unconstitutional piece of legislation, saying she was earlier wrongly quoted as having said that the bill is not unconstitutional if it is in conflict with the country’s constitution.
Instead, she said, she meant that not everything that is in conflict with the constitution is unconstitutional.
Targeted stakeholder consultations on the bill continued in the Khomas Region yesterday where comments were made that the proposed legislation in its current format goes against the grain of the Harambee Prosperity Plan (HPP).
Representing the opinions from a group discussion the chairperson of the Namibian Manufacturing Association (NMA), Brian Black, said the bill is “obstructing” HPP as it promotes a culture of handouts and entitlement while instilling fear and reluctance in potential investors.
He said more time for due consideration of the content of the bill is required.
“It should not be pushed down people’s throats. We must unite as one nation behind HPP,” Black said.
Other comments were that problematic issues in the NEEEF policy framework need to be sorted out before a bill can be hammered out.
Frustrated business owners felt the process is not transparent because they are not given all information pertaining to the drafting of the bill and said earlier submissions on NEEEF were not taken on board.
It was also pointed out that an economic assessment needs to be done and more research conducted on where the real economic ownership in Namibia lies.
Practically all participants in yesterday’s consultations felt that the ownership and management requirements should be voluntary instead of mandatory as the bill in its current form stipulates.
These mandatory provisions of the bill are causing a lot of discomfort and controversy, with white-owned businesses wanting to know how a fair value of the purchase of shares in their companies will be determined and funded.
The bill proposes a minimum requirement that white-owned private companies sell at least 25%, or a percentage to be determined by a minister, to previously disadvantaged persons (PDPs).
Another mandatory requirement is that 50% of such companies’ management must be made up of PDPs and that the equivalent of 0.5% of a company’s gross wages be spent on training.
Optional requirements are that businesses introduce entrepreneurship development and marketing, comply with corporate social responsibility requirements and add value through technology and innovation.
Veteran lawyer Andreas Vaatz wanted to know if these mandatory requirements are applicable to foreign-owned companies as
well.
The managing director at RMB Namibia, Steve Galloway, suggested that consideration be given to the successful empowerment laws of Singapore and Malaysia, as well as successful examples in local mining and financial services charters.
Galloway said the bill is premature and causing a lot of uncertainty, commenting: “It if is not pro-business it cannot be pro-growth.”
CATHERINE SASMAN
Article 23 (2) of the constitution states that parliament can enact legislation providing directly or indirectly for the advancement of persons within Namibia who have been socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged by past discriminatory laws or practices or for the implementation of policies and programmes aimed at redressing such imbalances.
It further states that a balanced structuring of the public service, police force, defence force and prison service should be achieved.
Dausab, however, did acknowledge that there are “potentially unconstitutional” provisions in the bill dealing with the right to property ownership, the right of association and the right to conduct any business or trade. She, however, stressed that the LRDC would not propose an unconstitutional piece of legislation, saying she was earlier wrongly quoted as having said that the bill is not unconstitutional if it is in conflict with the country’s constitution.
Instead, she said, she meant that not everything that is in conflict with the constitution is unconstitutional.
Targeted stakeholder consultations on the bill continued in the Khomas Region yesterday where comments were made that the proposed legislation in its current format goes against the grain of the Harambee Prosperity Plan (HPP).
Representing the opinions from a group discussion the chairperson of the Namibian Manufacturing Association (NMA), Brian Black, said the bill is “obstructing” HPP as it promotes a culture of handouts and entitlement while instilling fear and reluctance in potential investors.
He said more time for due consideration of the content of the bill is required.
“It should not be pushed down people’s throats. We must unite as one nation behind HPP,” Black said.
Other comments were that problematic issues in the NEEEF policy framework need to be sorted out before a bill can be hammered out.
Frustrated business owners felt the process is not transparent because they are not given all information pertaining to the drafting of the bill and said earlier submissions on NEEEF were not taken on board.
It was also pointed out that an economic assessment needs to be done and more research conducted on where the real economic ownership in Namibia lies.
Practically all participants in yesterday’s consultations felt that the ownership and management requirements should be voluntary instead of mandatory as the bill in its current form stipulates.
These mandatory provisions of the bill are causing a lot of discomfort and controversy, with white-owned businesses wanting to know how a fair value of the purchase of shares in their companies will be determined and funded.
The bill proposes a minimum requirement that white-owned private companies sell at least 25%, or a percentage to be determined by a minister, to previously disadvantaged persons (PDPs).
Another mandatory requirement is that 50% of such companies’ management must be made up of PDPs and that the equivalent of 0.5% of a company’s gross wages be spent on training.
Optional requirements are that businesses introduce entrepreneurship development and marketing, comply with corporate social responsibility requirements and add value through technology and innovation.
Veteran lawyer Andreas Vaatz wanted to know if these mandatory requirements are applicable to foreign-owned companies as
well.
The managing director at RMB Namibia, Steve Galloway, suggested that consideration be given to the successful empowerment laws of Singapore and Malaysia, as well as successful examples in local mining and financial services charters.
Galloway said the bill is premature and causing a lot of uncertainty, commenting: “It if is not pro-business it cannot be pro-growth.”
CATHERINE SASMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article